Sunday, December 15, 2013

Iran Says Nuclear Talks Continue Despite U.S. Blacklist

Iran said today it will keep talking with world powers on implementing
the Geneva interim agreement on it nuclear program despite a U.S. move on
Thursday to blacklist 19 Iranian companies for evading existing sanctions.

“We are pursuing the negotiations seriously and of course we will give a
well-considered, purposeful, smart and proper reaction to any inappropriate and
unconstructive move,” Foreign Minister Javad Zarif wrote on his Facebook page.

“The negotiations and achieving a result are a difficult task and will
definitely have a lot of ups and downs. We have predicted that from the very
beginning,” Zarif continued. (Facebook/AFP, 15 December)

US officials argued blacklisting of the Iranian companies was taken
under the existing sanctions regime which are in effect and enforceable during
the six-month period of the current agreement, and did not constitute new
measures.

Critics argued that it was an unwise move politically, violating the spirit, if
not the letter of the Geneva agreement, and playing into the hands of the
hard-right inside Iran. In fact, the measures angered Iran and prompted its
negotiating team to withdraw from the technical talks in Vienna that were to
draw the roadmap for implementing the Geneva interim agreement. It also have
drawn strong criticism in the Islamic Republic.

“The negotiating team has a more important responsibility,” Zarif
said. “It is ready to remain silent against unjust and unfair accusations (from
critics inside Iran) for the sake of national interests, but will answer to all
the criticism and ambiguity at the right time.”

Meanwhile, Russia expressed its deep concerns over U.S. blacklisting
of the Iranian companies. It warned today that expanding the sanctions blacklist
could seriously complicate the deal's implementation.

“The U.S. administration's decision goes against the spirit
of this document,” said Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria
Zakharova. “Widening American 'blacklists' could seriously complicate
the fulfillment of the Geneva agreement, which proposes easing
sanctions pressure.” (The Moscow times, 15 December)

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he expected the Vienna
implementation talks to resume in the coming days. The Iranian
delegation walked out of the talks on Thursday night, hours after the U.S.
announced the expansion of its blacklist.

“We have been hard at it in Vienna … we are making progress
but I think that they are at a point in those talks where folks feel
a need to consult and take a moment,” said Kerry during
a visit to Israel.

“There is every expectation that the talks are going
to continue in the next few days and that we will proceed
to the full implementation of that plan,” Kerry added. (AFP, 15
December)

Saddam hadn't "offered" anything in 82, hold your horses. It was the surprise, humiliating losses that his invading armed forces had sustained after several switft and decisive Iranian moves on the main front , and the rapid and catastrophic withdrawal that the Iranian counter-operations had triggered past their own territory were the only factors pushing him into retreat, with Saudi Arabia paying the bill for them. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Iran beating Saddam down and putting him back into his place to begin with. Next time you want to spit out your racist anti-Iran rant at least try not to bring up flawed and historically incorrect examples. See, people happen to know History better than you do. Factually, critics are right on this. Congress has stained Obama's credibility in his overall good handling of the Geneva negociations and subsequent intrerim accord that explicitely engaged the American side to avoid any kind of hardening of the existing sanction regime, and has made a clear and undeniable breach of the currently standing terms in that regard.. By taking such a hardline, counter productive and voluntarily dishonnest posture, they are sure play directly into the hands of thise skemtics in Iran that were waiting eagerly for this kind of easy opportunity to bash Zarif's efforts of rapprochement with the "Big Satan". There is nothing anyone can say against that simple , sad truth. Fortunatly the Iranian team seems wiser and more pragmatic than that and still insists on the way forward, nullifying the pro'AIPAC camp desperate last-ditch effort at destroying the deal in its inception phase.

Up until 1988 they offered Iran very favorable settlement terms, and Iran turned them down. It wasn't until Saddam took that filthy terrorist by the throat, and beat him into a humiliating submission (Saddam drove 50km into Iran and could have easily driven more) that Khomeini accepted far worse terms for surrender.

There's no such thing as a "lesson" when facing a war of aggression and reacting to it all the way to the enemy's home, wake the hell up. Iranians fought back and literally destroyed invading Iraqi forces in a war they did not ask for, repelling them from their territory and then beyond, and this in faster a fashion than any observer could have expected at the time considering it was a surprise war waged against a totally unprepared and ill-organized post-revolution Iran. The "terrorist" as you name it would rather be Iraq in the eyes of any sane individual, which was by nature and definition the aggressor and made Iran the victim, since if I remember correctly, it was the attacking force trying to opportunistically conquer resource-rich regions from Iran in an unprovoked offensive campaign.

I mean what kind of wicked rationale is this anyway ? had Nazi Germany been able to repel Allied Forces from its territory in 1945, would you say the US and the USSR "got their lesson" too ? wasn't Israel a "terrorist" too by invading parts of Damascus suburbs (i.e. Syrian territory) after the 1973 war (which on top of that, was not even technically an aggression war like with Iraq vs Iran, since its goal was to regain lost sovereign territory on the Golan and not Israeli mainland) ? did they "get their lesson" as well after a year of costly attrition war with the Syrians and a subsequent pullback to Golan ceasefire lines ?

Oh, and since you like to quote Wiki to support your thesis, here are some to offer nuances to your one-sided and conveniently truncated story about Iran's military prowess against Iraq :

Considering the outcome of every of the above encounters for the Iraqis before the war turned into an attrition one ultimately unfavorable to the exhausted Iranian forces, with Saddam enjoying full international support including both superpowers at its side and Iran suffering the effects of a global embargo, I'd say the lesson was more for Saddam not to try and attack Iran even at its weakest, ever again. And for Khomeini not to take his Shiite power and influence for granted, which is fine for me as well, considering the harm his personal ambition had on Iranian youth past 1982. The former didn't take the time to meditate on that long anyway since his greed for his neighbor's resources struck once again because of his war debts in Kuwait, barely 2 years after the end of the Imposed War. And this time, unlucky for that fool retard of a murderous dictator, it upset the whole of NATO and major Arab countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia all at once, so a quick bye-bye was his fate... oh but by your logic that would make Kuwait the terrorist as well here, right ?

Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint of what happened, but not their own made-up facts. I stand by my previously expressed opinion that Iraq and its civilian population was the victim from mid 82 and onwards so therefor had every right to defend itself. The Iranian civilian population were victims too of course, because of Saddam's retributions (war of the cities) which was a direct result of the Iranian regimes refusal to quit fighting and selfishly continued to pursue its own political ideology. Who is to say that it was wrong of us to defend our land, no matter the leader at the top. The majority fought to preserve Iraqi sovereignty. No arguing back and forth will change the clear sight i had of the situation of that time... and this is coming from someone whose nearest family members suffered from regime brutality, exactly the same way Iranians who returned home after the war had their civil rights violated. In other words, i will have to agree to disagree with some Iranians in this forum on some of the things regarding the Iran-Iraq war. Of course, all dictatorial regimes try to sell their respective populations propaganda. What is clear without a doubt is that both Saddam and Khomeini acted irresponsibly. The former should not have invaded and the latter should have been willing to accept a UN sponsored cease-fire then both regimes could have started discussing peace-terms. Now what is not disputable is the fact that Iran was the loser, if you look at it purely on military terms. The Mullah regime was absolutely broke by late 86 and could no longer afford to replenish lost weapons and near empty ammunition stockpiles (due to the devastation caused to Iran's tanker fleet and Kharg oil terminals which resulted in a huge loss of revenue). Hence why Iran did not make any major offensive in the South from early 87 to August 88. The last big attack was Karbala 5 (January 87), after that it was like the air had been punched out of them. People in Iran had sort of woken up and realized what the hell are we fighting for? Rectruitment dropped by more than 70%. The Iranian regime could not even reinforce the few areas that were still under their occupation (Faw, Majnoon, East of Basra). Most unfortunately it took the Iranian people years to start voicing their opposition against the Mullah adventurism which had layed out objectives that were impossible to achieve and in the process were using their own people as pawns and sacrificing them to no end. Khomayny wanted to continue fighting to at least 1993 if it was not for his right-hand Rafsanjany (Chief of the armed forces) who persuaded him to halt this madness. Saddam was genuinely contemplating the use of chemically filled Scud missiles against urban centers in Iran, if Khomayny wouldn't stop.

Also, I once read somewhere, that after the eviction of Iranian occupiers in Iraq, our ground forces for a second time came close to Ahwaz and stood outside of Khoramshahr and captured the road that connected the two. This is pure fiction produced by the Iranian leadership and military...it never happened. Had Iraq truly staged another full-blown invasion, then the troops would have taken the towns and cities in Khuzestan, much easier than the first time, and moved even beyond. And what's worse is that the Iranians were in no shape to free their own territory a second time around. The reason why Iraq did not invade again was simply because it barely had money to rebuild itself much less rebuild places in Khuzestan. So even a permanent hold of Iranian territory and a favorable peace-settlement would really not produce any gains for Iraq, until perhaps many years down the road. That's why Saddam announced that he no longer desired to conquer Irani territory, with the exception of a temporary push against the weakly defended town of Dehloran in Ilam province, with the purpose of capturing as many POW as possible to balance the leverage in peace-negotiations and to capture tanks and other armored vehicles to drain the last bit of strength of the Iranian military to make them incapable of preparing more attacks.

from a military standpoint, Iran was definitely the winner until 82, in fact illustrated right after IRIAF's first major and successful counter-offensive during Kaman 99, which occurred 24 hours after the initial Iraqi assault, or otherwise said as long as it wasn't suffering the lasting effects of an internationally enforced embargo, and still had enough spare parts and equipment to wage an effective war effort (no to mention the inherent administrative and military disorganization that the post-revolution country was going through at the time), and this, despite facing an America/Europe/USSR/Arab supported Iraq fighting a surprise assault, fact supported by the decisive engagements I mentioned earlier. I absolutely agree that both Saddam and Khomeini were the irresponsible despots who acted both stubbornly and selfishly while it was their people who was taking the toll of every of their ill-thought and megalomaniac decisions, and I said that many times before throughout my post regarding that conflict. But the whole tragedy ultimately lies on Saddam, who provided Khomeini with a golden opportunity both to murder thousands of his own people he deemed too dangerous to be left alive and not only to preserve, but even extend an already fledgling revolution in the early 80s.

Saddam's subsequent failure to push against Iranian forces after some initial gains is the determining factor that emboldened him so much in believing in some sort of Messianic mission to spread Shiite Islam as far possible. Who could have justified a unilateral invasion of Iraq in the eyes of the Iranian youth if Saddam hadn't moved first to conquer oil-rich regions of Iran and try to humiliate it in the process ? and your assertion that Iran would have attacked Iraq anyway in 3 to 4 years stime if beyond speculation and cannot decently be discussed or verified. Iraq attack Iran. In history, Iran will never have attack Iraq first, period. And by the UN charter itself, preemptive assault based on unilateral perception of threat is illegal, that is for a reason. Iraq itself was one of the biggest victims of that policy in 2003, which in turn became the biggest human tragedy of the 21st century, and I won't teach you anything on what happened next to the country...

Of course the Iraqis past 82 had every right to repel invading Iranian forces, but you cannot blame Iranian recruits for willing to punish Saddam and avenge his attempt at tearing apart the Iranian nation. I was more responding to the other participant telling us "we had our lesson and were put back into our place" which again, is factually wrong.

You once said on this blog that Iraq replaced Iran as the superpower in the region after the war, while you now acknowledge that would the war have continued, Iraq wouldn't have been able to consolidate its late gains and was economically broke, which I needed to remind you in the first place. Technically speaking , Iran was winning the war in a swift and critical way until it suffered a crippling lack of replacement parts for its mechanized and electronic equipment. It started losing during the following 6 years of attrition, another phase of the war, and another kind of war altogether, when it had to rely entirely on hyper-expensive black market dealings and was thus getting charged many-folds over the real cost of every single piece of equipment and spare they needed direly on the front, while all Saddam had to do in this period was simply to ask his many friends in the world both for loans and planes, tanks, or whatever. I do not call that a victory, more like a stalemate even in 88, with none of the parties being able to push decisively against the other.

There's no doubt about it Iraqi pilot. Yes, Iraq invaded first, and Iran's (Shah era western technique) military defeated him -- but that filthy terrorist Khomeini wanted total victory over Saddam rather than the very favorable offer that was made to him in 1982. What did he care, he wasn't going to die for his cause.

It wasn't until Saddam took that filthy roach by the throat, and beat Iran's military to a pulp in 1988 that Khomeini surrendered (on far worse terms than he was offered before).

That's a lesson for how you deal with this Iranian regime. They are bullies and they don't respond to reason.

Those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes. You have to understand what the terrorist regime is, or you will make the mistake of treating them like reasonable, logical human beings. They are animals, who you can only deal with via force. Sad for the Iranian people, but it is what it is.

Those are early in the war and were repulsed. The total domination of Khomeini did not come until the 1988 attacks. It was wonderful to see that filthy terrorist turned from "I am divine and we will not surrender until we conquer Baghdad" to "I have drunk the poison chalice of defeat."

As evil as Saddam was, ultimately history will appreciate the role he played in putting that murdering cockroach Khomeini and the terrorist thieving Iranian "Islamic" regime in their place.

Although, to be fair, Reagan was the first one to take those bullies head on and beat them down, in 1987 in the tanker war.

.There are supposed to be no new sanctions,the actions of the us runs counter to the spirit of the agreement and makes one wonder whether the west can be trusted to uphold its end of the bargain especially if they are already playing these sorts of games before the ink is even dry,hopefully iran will find loopholes of its own to exploit,of course the main thing is that irans centrifuges keep spinning,something the west has had no choice but to accept much to its consternation

I love how the 2 posters are trying to spin the iran iraq war as some sort of victory for iraq against "iranian aggression",instead of looking at the war as a whole they concentrate on the last year when iran finally agreed to the peace terms as evidence of some great iraqi victory,but the facts are this:saddam started a war of aggression,he was driven out of iran,he gained no iranian territory despite having the support of the west,soviets and arabs,he agreed to the peace deal years before iran,he was barely able to hold on to iraqi territory and maintain a stalemate,he was bankrupted and bled white so badly in fact that he turned on his neighbor and former ally kuwait just 2 years later,indeed the only "victory" that he could claim was that he was still in power at the end of it,that was his one and only success,but when you compare his ambition with what he actually ended up with then the scale of his defeat is huge and no amount of spin will change that

AnonymousDecember 15, 2013 at 9:46 AMIn case you havent noticed the west had no choice but to accept iranian enrichment,for all these years the demand was zero enrichment not one centrifuge,now the west has had to back down big time and accept thousands of them all spinning away,and saddam didnt beat anyone,his war against iran was a miserable failure that bankrupted his country and led directly to his invasion of kuwait and an even worse defeat for iraq by the coalition

AnonymousDecember 15, 2013 at 5:49 PMAnd how many lives did saddam squander in his failed wars of aggression against iran and kuwait?

yeah totally, and the funniest is that the same posters, and specially that racist AnonymousDecember 16, 2013 at 8:50 AM would definitely hail Israel's IDF every time it attacked and invaded its neighbors' territories, even in 1973 where the Arab forces only attacked and attempted to take back what was theirs and lost in in the 1967 surprise war, after which Israelis moved on to the outskirts of Damascus and threatened Cairo. When it comes to Iran, those psychotic haters even become fan of Iraqi they otherwise hate and despise ever since the country was stomped upon on a monthly basis since the end of the 91 war, and even more so since 2003's "Shock & Awe" with volleys of tomahawk flashing in Baghdad in an infamous clip re-transmitted by every major media outlet at the time. Did you also salute Iraqi pilots at the time while their country was unjustifiably and criminally reduced to smithereens by the Bush administration and when posters such as myself got insulted and banned in every US-based forums when trying to speak out against that act of state terror based on a pack of lies ? I remember hoping so hard that there is even ONE documented air-to-air kill of US aircraft at the hands of what remained of the IQAF just for the sake of honor, which unfortunately couldn't happen considering how overwhelmingly superior the so-called "Coalition" was... To witness them even praise and cherish Saddam Hussein himself now in regards to Iran is testimony to their irrational folly and intellectual inability when it comes to the Islamic Republic. Purely pathetic...

Despite my disagreements with Basrawi, I couldn't be sadder about what happened to their once great air-force and the way it was wiped away by a coalition of much bigger powers. And I say kudos for the few aces who performed kills against invading USAF foes considering the dire conditions they had to fight with... and yes I say invading, since it wasn't NATO's business to meddle in a purely Arab to Arab conflict, not more than when it concerned two middle eastern countries back in the 80s.

Seriously, aren't you tired of copy pasting the same reactionary bullshit every time you put your hands on a keyboard ? repeating the same nonsense will never make it true you know ? yes, "early in the war" was the only phase of the conflict (actually stretching to 1982) where Iran had a resemblance of logistical capacity to beat down Iraqi forces in widely documented and spectacular operations that I will not link again since I did so plenty of times already and that of course you ignored, before progressively running low on supplies, spares and ammo. By contrast to Iraq, Iran was, I remind you for the 10th time, EMBARGOED (you really should check out the definition of an embargo, I think your problem might take its roots right there), and this by all major countries in the world trying to bolster Saddam at the same time, helping him in cutting away pieces of the oil-rich country that was lost to western oil majors after the Revolution, and a brand-new Shiite stronghold that Sunni Gulf Monarchs wanted killed in its inception phase as fast as possible. The second time such thing happened since 1953's nationalization of oil by Mossadegh actually, so short of being able to immediately orchestrate yet another military coup (which they still tried again and failed after the Nojeh affair during the war), they relied on a neighboring greedy dictator with long pending fumes against Shah's Iran, to do the job for them. Another History lesson you should attend, but I guess it's hopeless to ask anyway.

History doesn't and won't ever appreciate Khomeini, Saddam or Bush for whatever monstrosities their policies incurred for Mankind, don't get all dreamy about a ludicrous bright future for their memories in generations to come. But I'm thinking, just like his former top buddy Donald Rumsfeld once said after publicly shacking his hand following a deal on providing him with chemical weapons for use on both civilian and military targets in Iran, you kinda have a crush on him for being "your son of a bitch" for some time rather than some independent enemy.

blacklisting companies and individuals before the deal is even implemented is setting a very poor precedent for any success,it violates the whole spirit of the deal which was no new sanctions,for iran this is just a stealthy way for the us of adding more sanctions,its a dumb thing to do and once again calls in to question whether the us can be trusted

AnonymousDecember 16, 2013 at 8:58 AMYeah,and saddam taught the coalition a savage lesson after he "voluntarily" withdrew from kuwaitDont you get sick of writing this sort of rubbish and then getting disproved time and time again by other posters here.Saddam lost,get over it already,he started a war of aggression to conquer iranian territory,he failed to do this,even with the help of the west,the soviets and the arabs it was all he could do to hold on to iraqi territory,by any reasonable standards he failed miserably in his war aims,at best in late 88 he was right back where he started from in 80 except he had bankrupted his nation and bled it white,indeed the economic damage that had been inflicted on iraq was so great it led directly to him invading kuwait and we all know what happened after that

AnonymousDecember 16, 2013 at 1:47 PMI think the phrase "there are none so blind as those who will not see" was written with anon 8:58 AM in mind

3:44, your then "divine" leader drunk the poison chalice of a brutal beating, at the hands of Saddam; and your current "divine" leader is learning another lesson from President Obama.

Now go back to your world of fantasy, where Iran's relationship to Iraq in 1988 is the same as the West's relationship to Iraq in 1991 (wow I knew terrorist supporters were liars, but this is just sad).

Yes I agree, I know, and it was a widely documented AAA trap if I remember correctly. I was rather talking about direct air-to-air confrontations. Of which none even occurred since the IQAF was already mostly destroyed on the ground and the surviving airplanes hidden since they were unable to take-off from cratered runways or otherwise critically damaged airbases...

And there comes our local champion again, daring even speak about a fantasy world. He really IS brainwashed isn't he ? Indeed Anon 1:47 PM, "there are none so blind as those who will not see". There is nothing more to say about that dreamer making a joke of himself every time he draws such ludicrous parallels and conjectures in his own personal little world of nonsense.

In the meantime, out there in the real world, Obama accepted not only to sit at the table to negotiate Iran's nuclear right rather than to impose a full dismantling through military measures as every republican and democrat hawks, not to mention Israel and Saudi Arabia have been frenetically asking since the Geneva Interim deal, but also labelled such prospect as an "unrealistic goal". Why we do not see uber-powerful KSA or Israel perform a surgical strike on ultra-weak, "pos", impotent, antiquated , WW2 piece of cake Iran instead, that is a mystery to me. Oh no wait, maybe they found out that they aren't in a position to take on the IRI alone without any US support despite your personal conviction at their prowess ? damn , that smells like bad news... Iran has indeed lost everything and is bowing to every player involved here, on its knees begging for mercy,on the verge of an all-out GCC/IDF invasion having the kindness to offer it a last chance, merciful souls as they are renowned to be, that's why we don't see poor Iranians demanding a recognition of their enrichment right and the persistence of their associated facilities anymore ! that is also why nobody ever granted them 5% enrichment as part of any deal so far !! ain't that a sad day for Iranian nuclear ambitions.... indeed, Iran today is in ruins, has suffered half a millions death, has no infrastructure, army or resources whatsoever to speak of, and has plenty of Scud craters to cover in its cities, and is currently burying its dead as we speak. The country is broke, shattered by an al-mighty Iraqi army dancing on its ruins. No doubt we're in (your version of) 1988.

Looks like I really have to get off my fantasy world guys... stayed and dreamed there too long already. You made my day once more Anon 9:59 AM, just keep going that way, please. And if possible, by keeping your sacrosanct of ignoring facts all around that make you the fool of the day every time you intervene here is such a mediocre and amateurish fashion in the eyes of so many.

LOL ! "A brutal beating" he says. How many Soviet-US-Europe-Arab supported Iraqis left in embargoed and disorganized Iran in 1982 when the former attacked with full force + surprise effect ? Jesus, get a life...

there is no "spirit" of a deal.... there is only the deal, in written terms..... and those terms leave existing sanctions in place and still enforceable.

Iran should not trust the US as every last party to the talks has learned not to trust the Iranian regime...... if Iran's government had not repeatedly proved itself to not be trustworthy, iran wouldn't be choking on round after round of sanctions

Yes of course in 91 there were, and more than one I think. Notably by some Mig-25 and Mig-29 aces. I was talking about the 2003 campaign... where a totally exhausted Iraq could barely defend itself against its many attackers.

The regime isn't Iran. It's like saying that Iran is the regime. Iran is Iran and the system that occupies Iran is the regime. The Nazi regime used the same tactics against German opponenets of the evil Nazi regime. But like all evil and corrupt regime's in history they all have their limited life span and end up in the garbage can of history.

AnonymousDecember 17, 2013 at 4:10 PMThats very funny when you look at the wests history of treachery and betrayals just in the middle east,but I guess a westoxicated person like yourself would rather just ignore those wouldnt you?,you`re right about one thing tho` iran shouldnt trust the west as far as they can spit it,this behavior by the americans of slapping on new sanctions before the deal is even implemented and in violation of it proves that only too well.

Talking of evil and corrupt regimes, the zionist regime has modelled itself on and gone even further than, the nazi regime. Talking of a limited lifespan, just like apartheid in South Africa, the zionist apartheid regime will also end up in the bin of history.

This Site

Uskowi on Iran offers factual reporting and editorial on the current situation in Iran, with special emphasis on political and military developments, nuclear program, foreign policy and law enforcement. We thank you for your visit and encourage you to post your comments. You can contact us by email: nuskowi |at| gmail.com.